(PC) Cruz v. Ballesteros

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUILLERMO TRUJILLO CRUZ, No. 1:20-cv-376-NONE-HBK

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RETAIN PENDING CASE v.

Doc. No. 15

S. BALLESTERO, ET. AL.

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO CLOSE

Defendants. CASE CONSISTENT WITH COURT’S

JANUARY 4, 2021 ORDER

Doc. No. 10.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to retain pending case delivered to correctional officials for mailing on February 8, 2021. Doc. No. 15. Plaintiff, a prisoner currently confined at Kern Valley State Prison, alleges correctional officials at Pelican Bay State Prison, his former place of detention, “refused to transpack [sic] with me legal documents pertaining to active case pending in ‘retaliation’ and ‘vengeance.’” Id. Plaintiff claims this was part of officials “evil scheme” to have the case dismissed for failure to file appropriate motions and briefs. Id. As relief, Plaintiff asks the Court to retain the case until he returns to his former institution. Id.

While it is well-recognized inmates have a First Amendment constitutional right to access to the courts, including reasonable access to law libraries or persons trained in the law, to vindicate basic constitutional rights violations, or attack their criminal convictions, the instant situation does not present a legitimate access to court violation. See Bounds vy. Smith, 430 U.S. 4

817, 828 (1977); Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) (citations omitted). A review of the docket reveals Plaintiff is not under a court-ordered deadline to file any motions or briefs. Further, Plaintiff was able to file the instant Motion evidencing his knowledge of his case number Instead, the Court, on January 4, 2021, after finding Plaintiff qualified as a three-striker under § 1915(g) and the imminent harm exception inapplicable, denied Plaintiff in forma pauperis status and directed him to pay the full filing fee of $402.00 within thirty-days. Doc. No. 10. As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee and the time has expired. The B Order further advised Plaintiff if he failed to timely pay the filing fee the case would be dismissed. Doc. No. 10, 4 4. The instant motion does not include any allegations that correctional Officials interfered with Plaintiff’s ability to pay the filing fee.

ACCORDINGLY, it is now ORDERED:

1. Plaintiffs motion to retain pending case (Doc. No. 15) is DENIED.

2. The Clerk is directed to close this case consistent with the Court’s January 4, 2021 Order (Doc. No. 10).

49 | TPIS SO ORDERED. “/.

Dated: __ February 27, 2021 thao Ih. foareh Back HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE